Patricia Casey: 'Men are the new women in world of US psychology'

Article here. Excerpt:

'Yes, it's official. Masculinity is toxic. Never mind that 100pc of men probably possess the relevant attributes. In its 'Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Men and Boys', the American Psychological Association (APA) has swept aside centuries of evolutionary and biological studies. The authors claim that their work is based on over 40 years of scientific writing on the topic. The problem is, that while claiming to be scientific, it reads like a manifesto for the ultra-hard-left feminist wing of the Marxist Party. Indeed, the whole document is a political wolf barely disguised as a benign sheep.

At first glance it seems to be worthwhile. Who doesn't' want to help men who have mental health problems such as depression? Who doesn't want to reduce the scourge of suicide, three times more common in men than women, and who does not think ending violence in domestic or indeed in any setting is desirable? Surely encouraging help-seeking behaviour in men is an admirable aspiration that public policy should strive towards?

The first sentence in the introduction sets the tone: "Boys and men are diverse with respect to their race, ethnicity, culture, migration status, age, socioeconomic status, ability status, sexual orientation, gender identity and religious affiliation. Each of these… contributes uniquely and in intersecting ways to shape how men experience and perform their masculinities". Notice there is no mention of biology. The Y chromosome, testosterone, brain function - the hunter-gatherer roles of ancient times are all irrelevant.

There then follow a number of definitions for the terms: Gender, cisgender, gender bias, gender role strain, masculinity ideology, gender role conflict, oppression, privilege and so on; a predictable list from gender theory warriors. Guideline number three says that psychologists understand the impact of power, privilege and sexism on the development of boys and men and relationships with others. Elsewhere it says that "traditional masculinity ideology discourages men from being intimate with others and is the primary reason men tend to have fewer friends than women". One of the authors, Ryon McDermott, asks: "What is gender in the 2010s? It's no longer just this male-female binary." The document is heavily peppered with ideological terms like those above, thus politicising what should have been a scientific document.
The press release from the APA hits the nail on the head when it concludes that spreading the message that men are adaptable, emotional and capable of engaging fully outside of rigid norms is what the guidelines want to do. Judging by the language and perspective in this document, the clear goal is to change the nature of men and make them more like women. This is deeply flawed and probably impossible. The strategy should be to channel the unhealthy behaviours of men into more positive lifestyles while reinforcing the positive aspects of traditional masculinity.

If men in need of psychological help are hectored and undermined, like political puppets or female clones, they will react against it. Attempting to suppress the male spirit may worsen the problems that the authors argue are so damaging to men. This will not be achieved by simply pretending that men and women are the same. As we say here in Ireland, "Briseann an dúchas trí shúilibh an chait" (True nature is seen in the eyes of the cat).'

Like3 Dislike0


Then run in the other direction. There are 2 kinds of clinical psychs: those who affiliate with the APA and those who do not. After this press release, no clinical psych can avoid the decision: do I stay affiliated with the APA or not? Those who stay affiliated will have cast their lot with the vile feminists. If you as a man (or woman too) calls a clin. psych for help, first thing to ask: do you affiliate with the APA? If they reply yes, hang up the phone and don't call them back. Let them figure it out.

Like1 Dislike0